It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is the skeptics OPINION given any weight?

page: 16
20
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I agree with you completely. There is no "one size fits all" explanation for all the phenomena reported. My point was that it is the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis that is reductionist and "Scientismistic." *

*My Spell-Check hates me now.




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Science by its very nature is skeptical. Nothing is believed by the rest of the scientific community simply because a certain scientist "says so". That scientist needs to show his work and be ready for the bombardment of other scientist trying to poke holes in his ideas and conclusions -- often by trying to find fault with the evidence (such as faults in the experimentation process).

Every scientific theory has been vetted like this. Science is constantly trying to find flaws in its own theories and hypotheses -- even theories that are regarded as being well-formulated (such as the Big Bang Theory).


And there in lies the problem people like Neoholographic have with science. Science relies on a rigorous process and their beliefs cannot stand up to those rigors. Unable to accommodate science, they are demanding that science accommodate them. They want to abandon the rigor process that drives discovery in favor of one that gives equal weight to the weakest sort of evidence.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The two most eminent, and scientific, researchers of the phenomenon ultimately rejected the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis in favor of something you yourself called "more bizarre." ... Although Hynek shied away from being explicit, for obvious reasons, Jacques Vallee was blunt.

I don't think Vallee or Hynek rejected the ETH. Vallee said several times he would disappointed if the answer was as simple as aliens, but I don't interpret that necessarily as a rejection of the theory.

And just because "the two most eminent, and scientific, researchers" didn't particularly like a certain theory doesn't mean it's less valid or probable since, at this point, the phenomenon still remains unknown and unexplained, even after their own work and efforts.

However I tend to agree that there's probably more than one answer, but as of now we can't reject any possibility, including the ETH.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by neoholographic
First off, that's just Tyson's opinion. For instance Stephen Hawking has reached the conclusion that Aliens almost certaintly exist.


When did Tyson claim that aliens did not exist?


Notice I asked Neoholographic a direct question and he (thus far) refuses to answer it.

So I ask again, when did Tyson claim that aliens do not exist?

Some people were suggesting reforms be made to the forums here. Might I suggest one? If you refuse to answer direct questions, say after three times, you are temporarily post-banned.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock
Here's some evidence which I think is interesting.
There's a lot of genuine NASA footage if you can actually be bothered to find it and watch it.


Done so, Investigated, Found the images are indistinguishable from prosaic spaceflight phenomena.

Reports at www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

Check it out and see if it changes your mind about any of the youtube postings.
edit on 27-8-2012 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I understand your point. You require absolute scientific proof. I thought it was quite interesting to say the least.
You don't know if they're all lying? Of course you don't.


Well, I do note that Karl Wolf swears he saw pictures of alien structures on the back side of the moon two years before the probe was launched. Why didn't you do even that simple of a reality check on his testimony? Are you that lazy-brained or hyper-trusting?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

... and the above is an example of selection bias or favoritism, as well appealing to incredulity with a dogmatic rejection of new possibilities immediately out of hand.



Selection bias? How so? Because I''m focusing on the strongest cases - the cases I believe you're willfully ignorant of? The very ignorance of which also motivated you to suggest the silly wormhole theory in the first place? On the other hand, I'm fairly confident you're biased towards trying to ignore the strongest UFO cases, as this wormhole 'theory' clearly doesn't apply to any of them. You've even admitted this extreme bias on more than one occasion, which is bizarre to say the least, as you seem to want to have prolonged debates about UFOs, while insisting on never doing any background research into the subject. I hope you are able to see how this might lead to one-sided discussions.

Your perception of an 'appeal to incredulity' is actually your unwillingness to acknowledge some pretty clear reasoning, along with a perceived displeasure at my revealing to everyone your wormhole 'hypothesis' for what it really is, by taking it to its logical conclusion in light of the best UFO case evidence.

'Dogmatic rejection'? I took what you said and used simple logic and data. I suppose you might perceive it as dogmatic rejection because it didn't make your 'hypothesis' look so good.


Originally posted by Druscilla

Nowhere did I say natural wormhole phenomenon would account for the entirety of any and every unknown variable.



And nowhere did I attribute that position to you. I'd be perfectly happy if the wormhole theory explained some cases of purported UFO sightings. The problem is that it doesn't make any sense as an explanation in light of the strongest historical UFO cases. It's quite sophomoric actually.


Originally posted by Druscilla

Nowhere have I said that Aliens are NOT a possibility. I criticize the possibility of aliens, sure, but I don't leave the possibility out. There is a possibility for aliens. I just don't gosh and gush over it.



I think we somewhat agree on this.


Originally posted by Druscilla

You made a statement of disbelief and even disdain, regarding the discovery of new natural phenomenon.
I proposed some examples.



Incorrect. I made a reasoned argument for why this particular wormhole hypothesis is absurd. I would never discount out of hand a new scientific discovery. I have a background in mathematics, science and the history of science. I'm actually a huge fan. Just not a fan of sloppy speculation. And it's abundantly clear from your posts that you have no formal background in any of these fields. Your description of a wormhole betrayed this immediately.


Originally posted by Druscilla

Your dismissal of any probability that could further narrow the percentage of unknowns, even where it's speculation, shows your true colors.



I think this kind of bizarre 'reading into' and 'filling in' of what I said shows your true colors. You've actually done it several times in this post, and in many other posts prior. Where did I ever even suggest that I dismiss "any probability that could further narrow the percentage of unknowns"? What I did was to clearly demonstrate as absurd some half-baked idea about UFOs being wormholes. That's all.


Originally posted by Druscilla

I simply supplied an example of one natural phenomenon that could narrow the percentage of false positive hits, an example that's no more or less relevant than Aliens.



Yes, it was a very poor example. Please see my reasoning above for why that is so.


Originally posted by Druscilla

Nowhere were triangles, diamonds, lucky horseshoes, green clovers, or any other Lucky Charms shape described other than spheres and variations on spheres such as the lens/saucer shape.
Freud might have something to say about those cigar and cylinder shape reports, but, that's beside the point.

Nowhere were portholes described either.



Yes, precisely. You never took into account any shapes other than spheres and discs, which is what in part discredits the wormhole idea, if it's supposed to even put a dent in the best UFO cases.


Originally posted by Druscilla

However, since portholes are mentioned, are you just going to take an anecdotal account for the portholes as true? Portholes could very well be the result of human embroidery due faulty memory.



This again shows your ignorance of the historical UFO cases. It's not just "an" account, it's many accounts. And even supposing they didn't have such features (which I am open to), the wormhole theory still can't account for some of their primary, defining features - their flight characteristics and their occasional non-spherical and non-discoidal shapes.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

What is the measure and quantity of human memory and cogitation anyway?
Well, let's look at a chimpanzee and then compare. Can you beat a chimpanzee?

Click HERE for the same test you can take yourself.

If you can't beat the chimpanzee, then, don't feel bad, because Chimpanzees are quite a degree superior in comparison to humans when it comes to memory reflex, and rapid cognizance in assimilating split second data.
Chimpanzees actually have better data throughput than humans.
Humans, by measure, are about the worst animals on the planet when it comes to memory reflex and assimilation of rapidly changing and/or foreign data.
Anecdotal evidence without alternative corroboration is thus essentially inadmissible.

Portholes? Maybe, but, then again, maybe not.



But what you're willfully ignoring is the fact that, in the best UFO cases, it's not just single witness - it's multiple witnesses, often in distinct locations and that do not know one another, in addition to radar corroboration. If all of these descriptions corroborate, you can reasonably rule out the possibility of misperception and faulty memory. This is actually a typical debunker tactic (or simply the tactic of a poor critical thinker) - grossly mischaracterize the circumstances, and argue against those fictional circumstances, instead of facing the full spectrum of data head on. And there's a reason for that - they can't.


Originally posted by Druscilla

Your own lack of objectivity and complete bias in favor of Aliens, or *cough* the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis, is shining like a beacon in this last post of yours.
Bravo.
You could have said you were a biased believer from the start.



This is actually astounding. I never thought it was possible for someone to mischaracterize a position to such a degree. Again, I am skeptical of the ETH, although I certainly don't discount it. I'm far from 'biased' towards it. But I am biased against undeveloped, nonsensical theories. And this actually demonstrates, again, your highly confused thought regarding the entire phenomenon - you're confusing the UFO hypothesis with the ETH. There's no excuse for that. The existence of UFOs could theoretically be demonstrated independently of whether or not aliens are piloting them. So, not only did you magically bring aliens into the discussion (yes, I noticed it), you've also claimed that I'm somehow 'biased' towards them.

I think what's happening is that you may be expressing, in some circuitous fashion, your displeasure at my displaying to all the absurdity of your wormhole idea. You have to realize that in the world of mature debate, criticism is par for the course. Especially when it's that easy. If you want to avoid easy criticism, present some well-constructed ideas.


Originally posted by Druscilla

It's fine. You and anyone else can believe, hide out in the closet, or not believe to whatever comfort level they want to.
Don't get mad at me when it doesn't come true.
I'm not responsible for the lack of aliens.
I'm only calling it how I see, or don't see it.




Yes, and 'how you see it' should really be cause for alarm. You consistently grossly mischaracterize positions, ignore enormous sets of the most relevant of data, and misunderstand the basic contours of the very subject matter at hand. You frequently commit logical fallacies, and the internal logic of your posts resembles a combustion engine put together by Rube Goldberg after being hit by a tornado.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Show me an alien.
Show me a flying saucer....

Wait. What?
You can't produce a flying saucer, or an alien at will? ....

No one actually has any PROOF that aliens or flying saucers do in fact exist? [My emphasis.]

Druscilla, hang on a second here, please! :-) It seems to me that you've moved the goalpost in this thread.

Pages back, you were simply asking for the logic that might lead one to accept the ETH. For example, you said things like:
"We're curious how you get to Aliens. Maybe you have data that we don't and can learn from your example?", and
"[Show us] how you get from Unidentified Object, to Aliens."

Those and similar statements by you can be seen here, here, and
here, and another here, and a few more.

In those posts, you're asking for 'evidence'.

Now, in your reply above, you switch to a new standard altogether, demanding "proof": an actual alien, or a saucer, and you dismiss anything less.

Why has the standard just changed? Are you asking for evidence, or are you asking for proof?

Most everyone acknowledges that there can be significant evidence even for hypotheses that remain unproven. Science couldn't work at all were that not the case, since it is, in a sense, just applied statistics, where nothing is ever actually 'proven'. (Only in mathematics.) The best that most scientists can do is hope to stack on a few more sigmas, pushing the statistical confidence level in support of a hypothesis higher and higher... from, say, 60%, to 80%, to 95%, to 99.99999%. At some point, depending on the field, that number becomes high enough that whatever's being studied is essentially accepted as reality... but it's always understood to be tentative, subject to modification.

My point? I don't think anyone here has argued that the 99% or even 95% confidence level has been met with respect to any UFO/alien connection, i.e., that 'proof' exists. To me, it sounds more like the most reasonable people on here are only asking that the 51%, or 60%, or whatever % you want to call it, just not be dismissed as ridiculous or "illogical", as you call it. Because the data -- real data, as in SR#14 -- shows that the ETH is not only far from illogical, but is even farther from that place where it could be reasonably dismissed as a hypothesis.

edit on 27-8-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Quaesitor
 


Okay. So what if I told a Ghost Story?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Most everyone acknowledges that there can be significant evidence even for hypotheses that remain unproven. Science couldn't work at all were that not the case, since it is, in a sense, just applied statistics, where nothing is ever actually 'proven'. (Only in mathematics.) The best that most scientists can do is hope to stack on a few more sigmas, pushing the statistical confidence level in support of a hypothesis higher and higher... from, say, 60%, to 80%, to 95%, to 99.99999%. At some point, depending on the field, that number becomes high enough that whatever's being studied is essentially accepted as reality... but it's always understood to be tentative, subject to modification.

My point? I don't think anyone here has argued that the 99% or even 95% confidence level has been met with respect to any UFO/alien connection, i.e., that 'proof' exists. To me, it sounds more like the most reasonable people on here are only asking that the 51%, or 60%, or whatever % you want to call it, just not be dismissed as ridiculous or "illogical", as you call it. Because the data -- real data, as in SR#14 -- shows that the ETH is not only far from illogical, but is even farther from that place where it could be reasonably dismissed as a hypothesis.

edit on 27-8-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)


Precisely, my friend. Bottom line right there. Nice.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Pointless insults aren't necessary. It just shows you're irrational and abusive. Never mentioned Karl Wolf you brought that up and then start your petty name calling. Pathetic.
edit on 27-8-2012 by JimTSpock because: cut



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Some people keep asking for proof, this is not hard to grasp and should be obvious. there is no proof.
yet 'skeptics' keep asking for it where this subject is concerned. they are making unreasonable demands.

Not one theory to explain u.f.o's has PROOF, not one. not even the skeptics own opinions on what u.f.o's are.
nobody not anybody has 100% proof of what u.f.o's are.

nobody in this thread is saying that u.f.o's are due to aliens and it is a fact, they are saying that some of the data indicates it to be a possibility.

so when skeptics keep asking for proof they are asking for something that up to this point never existed.
maybe they know this and use it to attack anybody who has come to the conclusion that supports the alien possibility.

there is only evidence that points to it being a possibility, just like there is evidence to support other possibilities
and nobody has the answers to prove exactly what u.f.o's are, skeptics included.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
But what you're willfully ignoring is the fact that, in the best UFO cases, it's not just single witness - it's multiple witnesses, often in distinct locations and that do not know one another, in addition to radar corroboration. If all of these descriptions corroborate, you can reasonably rule out the possibility of misperception and faulty memory. This is actually a typical debunker tactic (or simply the tactic of a poor critical thinker) - grossly mischaracterize the circumstances, and argue against those fictional circumstances, instead of facing the full spectrum of data head on. And there's a reason for that - they can't.


But they do. A good example is the Minsk airliner case in September 1984, multiple witnesses, reported radar confirmation, reported physiological effects -- but due to a detailed series of sketches by the co-pilot, irrefutably tied to a Soviet SLBM launch a thousand miles away. Or the 1996 Yukon 'mother ship' case -- multiple witnesses, EM effects, the works, irrefutably tied to a rocket booster reentry. Or the Canary Island flap of the 1970s, with massive glowing spheres [with crewmen visible inside] tied to Trident SLBM launches.

These types of cases had all the characterisitcs you claim constitute 'good', unsolvable cases. But they DID have solutions -- they were just too hard to find for every UFO investigator on the planet, until investigated by others with specialized knowledge. Knowledge which nobody in the UFO world had ever heard of.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Pointless insults aren't necessary. It just shows you're irrational and abusive. Never mentioned Karl Wolf you brought that up and then start your petty name calling. Pathetic.
edit on 27-8-2012 by JimTSpock because: cut



Wasn't this your earlier post?


Originally posted by JimTSpock
Here's some evidence which I think is interesting.

Google disclosure project and have a read.

www.disclosureproject.org...

Let me guess it's all fake and they're all lying.


I could be wrong, but Karl Wolf was one of the 'Disclosure' witnesses, wasn't he?

If so, please reconsider your reply.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I think this is incorrect. Are you implying that all astronauts go crazy, or that everyone in the world that is in power is completely honest and forthcoming with everyone? The world these skeptics live in, although they say we believers live in it quite often, is all flowers and sunshine. This world, while not under some demonic influence, is still not on its best day, and this is indisputable. It's not insane to question the world around you, not even ceaselessly. 5 conspiracies that were theories; that were later proven were, CIA mind control testing (project mk ultra), US military creating a flying saucer of sorts (avro car) the 1993 world trade center bombing (FBI admits to funding it) plans of the US military to terrorize the American people during the cold war (operation northwoods) The gulf of tonkin was widely known to be a conspiracy, which is now confirmed by the US government. In light of all of these incidents where the 'believer' community was ridiculed. I think it's only fair for you skeptics to accept, we're not wasting our time, you're just ignoring the work we've done, for whatever reason. Even if instead of the Illuminati, all we uncover is a group of elite bankers conducting themselves fraudulently, it was well worth the effort. Perhaps the exaggeration gets a little much at times, but who cares, awareness that something is going on is always a good thing. So what if people believe in ghosts, an afterlife, aliens, UFO's or any of the like, why make it a point of your life to take away something that benefits society even if ever so marginally. I just hope you reconsider being so arrogant as to think these things need to be 'debunked'.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Karl Wolf was one of the disclosure people. But what's your point, you think one guy is suspect that you picked out and I never mentioned so that makes the whole thing suspect? Not rational.

I'm sure various military hardware such as ICBMs etc have been mistaken for UFOs lots of times. SR-71, F-117, B-2, F-22, BGM-109 etc etc etc could all be mistaken easily by civilians.

There are incidents where no military or civilian hardware can account for the flight performance observed. There are numerous incidents involving jet fighters and craft performing far beyond our technical capabilities. These are not SLBMs, ICBMs or any other hardware in our arsenal.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Brighter
But what you're willfully ignoring is the fact that, in the best UFO cases, it's not just single witness - it's multiple witnesses, often in distinct locations and that do not know one another, in addition to radar corroboration. If all of these descriptions corroborate, you can reasonably rule out the possibility of misperception and faulty memory. This is actually a typical debunker tactic (or simply the tactic of a poor critical thinker) - grossly mischaracterize the circumstances, and argue against those fictional circumstances, instead of facing the full spectrum of data head on. And there's a reason for that - they can't.


But they do. A good example is the Minsk airliner case in September 1984, multiple witnesses, reported radar confirmation, reported physiological effects -- but due to a detailed series of sketches by the co-pilot, irrefutably tied to a Soviet SLBM launch a thousand miles away. Or the 1996 Yukon 'mother ship' case -- multiple witnesses, EM effects, the works, irrefutably tied to a rocket booster reentry. Or the Canary Island flap of the 1970s, with massive glowing spheres [with crewmen visible inside] tied to Trident SLBM launches.

These types of cases had all the characterisitcs you claim constitute 'good', unsolvable cases. But they DID have solutions -- they were just too hard to find for every UFO investigator on the planet, until investigated by others with specialized knowledge. Knowledge which nobody in the UFO world had ever heard of.


Of course I'm aware that most UFO sightings have prosaic explanations, but as far as your explanations for the aforementioned cases go, I just don't find them compelling or conclusive (except for the Canary Island sightings, which I agree were most likely ballistic missile launches), although I see how a casual reader might be impressed by them. And I don't think anyone would say that you have solved or "irrefutably proved" anything. Your explanations rely far too heavily on completely discounting the witnesses' testimony. In order for your explanations to work, you also have to completely deny large swathes of facts from each case. For instance, take this description of the motion of the object from the Minsk case:


The greenish cloud suddenly dropped below the altitude of the aircraft, ascended vertically, moved to the left and right, and then stopped right across from Tu-134A [flight 7084]. The cloud was chasing it.... Lazurin shouted the object was teasing them.


Your favored explanation for this was that they were witnessing a missile test. But what kind of missile moves down and up, and then left to right and then suddenly stops right next to an airplane? I know that you want to say that the pilots somehow misperceived it, but that would have to be an absolutely incredible misperception.

You also tend to rely on picture-analogies, which I find unconvincing, as it's far too easy to search for a picture of an identified object that 'kind of' resembles what the witnesses describe. Another problem is that, when two pictures are placed side-by-side, ones natural reaction is to search for resemblances. And if you've already planted a suggestion of purported similarity prior to showing them the two pictures, most people will immediately see some similarities, even if the pictures are of two entirely different objects. I think your picture analogies rely far too heavily on this kind of 'filling in'. And as an aside, with the pilot's sketches from the Minsk case, you never (to my knowledge) provided the corresponding series of pictures of a missile launch with which to compare the two. If you would provide such pictures, it could convince me (and I'm sure many others) that there is something to the missile launch explanation.

Finally, there are much stronger cases than these, of which I'm sure you're aware. Cases that are far less ambiguous and don't involve smoke being emitted from the object or moving clouds, but rather quite distinct aerial objects that defy any booster or rocket explanations. It would be far more interesting if you would look at just such cases, as I can't help but notice that you intentionally seek out only those cases that are have a high probability of being the result of a missile, booster, etc.

That being said, I commend your hard work and dedication, and I think it's a necessary part of this field. I'm just not entirely convinced by most of the explanations that I've looked at.
edit on 28-8-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slante
Perhaps the exaggeration gets a little much at times, but who cares, awareness that something is going on is always a good thing.

I don't have a problem with awareness, the only problem I see in some believers (the more radical) is that they refuse to accept anything besides their own opinion, which is limiting the awareness to their own point of view.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slante
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I think this is incorrect. Are you implying that all astronauts go crazy, or that everyone in the world that is in power is completely honest and forthcoming with everyone? The world these skeptics live in, although they say we believers live in it quite often, is all flowers and sunshine.


Sorry, I'm not following you regarding astronauts going crazy. Please clarify what you're trying to say so I can explain what I'M trying to say.




top topics



 
20
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join